MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF SIBLE HEDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL HELD AT 75 SWAN STREET, SIBLE HEDINGHAM ON FRIDAY, 1ST AUGUST 2008 AT 4.30 PM
In the chair: Miss. C. Cannell
Present: Cllrs. J. Beavis, R. Falco, R. Green and A. Law.
Mr. A. Corder-Birch (Clerk).
Apologies for absence
Mrs. G. Massey and Mr. J. Skittrall.
Declarations of interest
Mrs. J. Beavis declared personal and prejudicial interests in connection with the application relating to 23 Potter Street as a friend and business acquaintance respectively of the applicant. No other interests were declared.
3. Minutes of previous meeting
The minutes of the previous Planning Committee Meeting held on 14th July 2008, having been previously circulated, were taken as read, were confirmed and duly signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
4. Matters arising from those minutes
There were no matters arising.
5. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
6. Planning Applications
The following planning applications were considered:
08/01334/TPOCON – 23 Potter Street – Application to fell one walnut tree – although sad to fell a tree this is necessary in view of sewer and Tree Warden’s advice – no objection providing a replacement tree is planted.
08/01341/FUL – 13 Sparrow Close – Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of rear extension to provide two additional bedrooms and lounge area, demolish existing single skin brickwork porch and re-build in cavity work. Dr. R. Green visited site and could not see any objection. Resolved no objection.
08/01353/LBC – The White Lion, 6 Church Street – Formation of openings in walls for access and escape, creation of additional bar area, erection of partitions, reinstatement of fireplace and chimney flue plus associated works – no objection.
08/01370/FUL – 58 Hawkwood Road – Erection of rear conservatory – no objection.
Planning Enforcement
Mobile home in rear garden of 9 Yeldham Road
Councillors reported that they had visited the site and that the fence on the Christmas Field boundary had been replaced with concrete posts so unlikely that the mobile home will be removed and may become permanent. The Clerk reported that at the request of Councillors he had taken advice from Mr. B. Taplin, BDC Planning Enforcement Officer who had stated as follows:
“The position with a mobile home within the curtilage of a dwelling-house is simply one of whether it is being used incidental ‘to the enjoyment of the dwelling-house as such’ and if it is then it is not development as defined by Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and therefore is not controllable under the planning regime. If the house-owner is using it for storage or even accommodation by members of the family unit in occupation then it would then be an incidental use.”
It was noted that Mr. Taplin would visit site and advise further. Although no overhead lines were visible Councillors wished to know (i) if it is connected to the services (ii) will the occupiers be paying Council Tax and (iii) if BDC will regard it as permanent as the boundary fence has been re-erected with concrete posts. Concern was also expressed regarding the doctrine of precedent. It was agreed to seek Mr. Taplin’s further advise on these points and also his findings following his site visit.
Fence at Summerfields, High Street Green
Mr. R. Falco reported that some months ago a large fence had been erected at Summerfields, High Street Green, which was in breach of planning control. This fence obstructed visibility for traffic and both SHPC and ECC Highways had asked Mr. B. Taplin of BDC to take enforcement action. He had spoken to owners and asked them to remove the fence or reduce its height to 3 foot. Over the months part of the fence had been removed but some three metres still remained, which the owners had failed to remove despite reminders from BDC. On 10th July 2008 SHPC had asked Mr. Taplin to continue to pursue the owners but he was reluctant to take further action. Councillors considered that his decision is not acceptable and SHPC is unsupported. As this is a road safety issue, along a road with no pavement, the remainder of the fence must be removed in the interests of safety. In the circumstances it was resolved that the Clerk writes direct to the Chief Executive of BDC asking for support for SHPC.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 5 pm.
………………….. ………………………………
(Date) (Chairman)